Tri-State Generation and Transmission's Craig Station was ranked the No. 1 carbon polluting power plant in Colorado and 55th out of nearly 6,000 electricity-generating facilities in the country, according to a report called “America’s Dirtiest Power Plants” released Tuesday by Environment Colorado. Yet power plant and government officials think that is an unfair assessment of Craig Station. This aerial photo of the power plant was taken in late June in a plane flown by pilot Andy Middlemiss.

Craig Station ranks as No. 1 carbon polluting power plant in Colorado

Top 5 carbon polluting power plants in Colorado

Craig Station Power Plant, run by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc.

Comanche Generating Station, run by Xcel Energy

Cherokee Generating Station, run by Xcel Energy

Pawnee Generating Station, run by Xcel Energy

Hayden Generating Station, run by Xcel Energy

Source: Environment Colorado

Craig  Craig’s highest taxpayer and Colorado’s second-largest power plant is under fire from a state environmental organization.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission’s Craig Station is listed as the No. 1 carbon polluting power plant in Colorado and 55th out of nearly 6,000 electricity-generating facilities in the country, according to a report called “America’s Dirtiest Power Plants” released Tuesday by Environment Colorado.

Power plant and Moffat County elected officials think the Craig Station is being singled out unfairly in light of proposed regulations coming down the pike.

The report ranks power plants nationwide by levels of carbon emissions. Because the organization cites carbon dioxide emissions as the driving cause of global warming, the report calls on government officials to make drastic changes in energy policies.

“Power plants, both for Colorado and the nation, are the single largest factor in pollution,” said Margaret McCall, energy associate for Environment Colorado. “As a whole, Colorado’s power sector is by and large the largest polluter" in the state.

The Environmental Protection Agency made headway Friday in its effort to cut down on carbon emissions through a proposal that would limit the amount of carbon a new power plant could release into the atmosphere.

“Climate change is one of the most significant public health challenges of our time. By taking common-sense action to limit carbon pollution from new power plants, we can slow the effects of climate change and fulfill our obligations to ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement.

Yet the proposal will not affect Tri-State immediately, Boughey said.

“Tri-State is a partner in the proposed expansion of a coal-fueled power plant in Kansas,” Boughey wrote in an email. “We are pleased that the EPA recognized the cooperatives' significant investment in the project and that it was appropriate to not include it in the new rule.”

The proposal’s success could determine what regulations come out next year when the EPA will present its proposed regulations for existing power plants, like Tri-State’s Craig Station. The EPA is expected to put that proposal out in June 2014. And the proposal, Boughey said, doesn’t make sense for coal power plants now.

“The challenge is that the technology to capture emissions from power plants is still under development,” he said.

McCall said it is time to start cutting back on carbon emissions and the power resources that produce it.

“We don’t regulate carbon,” she said. “We need to be shifting all of our energy away from coal.”

But Moffat County Commissioner John Kinkaid said the government needs to take a break from regulation. For a community like Craig, he said, coal is crucial to the economy and the business should have space to grow instead of dealing with more restrictions.

“What comes out of our stacks in Craig is by and large water vapor. If our plants were dirty in Craig, we’d be the first to see,” he said. “What (Environment Colorado) is asking isn’t practical at this time, and it’s going to make life harder for average people.”

He expressed concern that Environment Colorado’s report could be used in legislation that would be directed negatively at Moffat County’s energy industry.

“It’s easy to reference this in committee testimonies and justify more over regulation,” he said.

In their report, Environment Colorado asks for more energy policy than the EPA’s most recent proposal. The environmental organization details the ways in which it wants to reduce carbon emissions. Among a push for solar power, plug-in vehicles and widespread public transit, it recommends that the U.S. adopt a renewable energy standard: requiring that 25 percent of electricity comes from renewable resources by 2025.

Environmentalists in general, Kinkaid said, are missing the bigger picture. Solar and wind need to be backed up, he added. That means renewable energy still depends on a solid infrastructure of energy like coal or natural gas, he said.

“We take our electricity for granted. People don’t realize how fragile the grid is,” he said. “We’re losing some of our redundancy and getting closer to the edge, and one of these days, we’re going to have brown-outs.”

For an economy like Craig’s, cuts to the coal industry would be devastating, Kinkaid said.

“The environmental extremists have gone a bridge too far. It’s starting to affect real people with real jobs, and there are real consequences,” he said. “One of the things they talk about is, 'Will there be jobs in the new economy?' Not like these jobs. Not ones that pay well.”

But McCall said that is a narrow approach to a larger problem.

“We’re always talking about real people, but real people are also feeling the impacts of extreme weather and global warming,” she said. “We can’t afford to be short-sighted about this.”

This is a complex issue that shouldn’t be rushed, Boughey said.

“We’re concerned that the administration is trying to address the complex issues of carbon emission through the Clean Air Act,” he said. “If carbon regulations are considered, it should be through Congress.”

Boughey also made clear that Craig Station was not against using renewable energy but that it was important for companies to have the ability to do so when it made market sense.

“We’re always compliant with state and federal laws, and we seek to get a balance in our portfolio,” he said. “Every resource has a value, including renewable energy, but we oppose mandates that determine what resources we use.”

As far as the EPA’s proposal, Kinkaid is unimpressed.

“It looks like they’re still intent on putting coal power plants out of business,” he said. “It’s an unfair proposal. And they know that.”

Comments

Yes, and a semi uses more fuel and pollutes more than a sub-compact. You pay for what you want and what you get. If you are the biggest, you will likely pollute the most. These numbers prove nothing.
If they compiled these numbers per kilowatt-hour I am certain that Craig Station would be one of the cleanest in the nation. But when you just list flat totals then the numbers lie.

Great, more BS by our planet saving whack jobs. How about this oh wise ones...... We remove you completely from the fossil fueled power grid. No computer to complain on, no lights to do your research to complain about and no electricity whatsoever. How long do you think you will last?
I am all for green energy, but it should be if I want to go that way, not because I am told to. This is America, who do you think you are? Coal will always be here for us, and Tri-State is one of the cleanest power providers around. I am grateful for those who dig it up and for those who put it to use to make my life more manageable. It would be simply miserable any other way.
This crap is just fluff, nothing more, but a whole lot less. Wanna whine, go whine at China.

The article is total BS! I wholeheartedly agree with David Moore's above post.

I'd like to know how they came up with data to support their statement that Craig's power plant is the #1 polluter in the state. If I remember correctly our power plant and Hayden's were held to a much higher standard due to the proximity of wilderness areas. I would take our air over the front range's any time.

I love the comment in the article about pushing more plug-in cars. It doesn't take much of an IQ to realize that electricity has to be produced from something - it doesn't just magically appear! And if you're relying on solar - you won't be driving very far.

Where is the opinion of the Seirra club on this? If my memory serves me correct, they were the ones who, like Nadja said, held us to a higher standard because of our proximity to the Zirkel Wilderness, which we (Craig and Hayden) were presumably polluting.
If Tri-State, and Hayden for that matter, are such dirty power plants, wouldn't we see it in our skies, on our windows and in our lungs? The skies above our corner of this great state are some of the most blue ever seen. Want pollution, drive down Floyd hill or even better, drive into Steamboat on a cold winter morning, they have their own version of the brown cloud on cold mornings.....everyone burning wood to keep warm. As far as electric cars are concerned, try going up Rabbit ears in one, would take you a couple hours at 12 feet per minute. How about towing a trailer with 4 horses in it? Ha, 4 horses is about all it would put out.
Green energy is a great alternate source of power, but it is not the answer and we should have the choice wether to use it or not. Wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. However, no matter the situation, burning coal heats water which makes the steam to turn the turbine...rain, clouds, shine or snow.

Electric cars, what a joke. Where will the electricity come from? Likely a coal fired power plant. Because you will want to plug your car in at night when solar doeant' work, and if the wind isn't blowing wind won't work either.
In a recent article I read that England is short on power after convering to wind and solar.

A climate study article was recently published that disputes current global warming theories, primarily the ones promoted by Gore. A group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions

A quote from the article:

"More than 20 years down the track, it is now evident this approach has been mistaken," they write. "One result has been the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars implementing energy policies that now appear to have been unnecessary, or at least ill-timed and ineffective."